Dharamshala vs The State Of Himachal
2021 Latest Caselaw 5025 HP

                               1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                 ON THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021




                                                          .
                           BEFORE





           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
                  CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION)





                  No. 244 of 2019
     Between:-
     SH. LOKESH GUPTA, S/O SH.
     BHUVNESH GUPTA, R/O 522/3,
     DEPOT            BAZAAR




     DHARAMSHALA,       TEHSIL
     DHARAMSHALA,    DISTRICT
     KANGRA.          r                          ...PETITIONER

     (BY SHRI D. K. KHANNA, ADVOCATE)

     AND

1.   THE STATE OF HIMACHAL



     PRADESH          THROUGH
     SECRETARY (PWD), TO THE
     GOVT.     OF     HIMACHAL




     PRADESH, SHIMLA.





2.   THE       ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF
     (HPPWD), US CLUB, SHIMLA.

3.   THE    HIMACHAL   PRADESH





     SUBORDINATE       SERVICES
     SELECTION BOARD THROUGH
     ITS SECRETARY, HAMIRPUR.

4.   ROLL NO. 433, SELECTED AS
     JUNIOR           ENGINEER
     (ELECTRICAL        HPPWD)
     THROUGH THE ENGINEER-IN-
     CHIEF, HPPWD, US CLUB,
     SHIMLA.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS




                                         ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:13:27 :::CIS
                                         2



     (SHRI  ASHOK     SHARMA,  ADVOCATE
     GENERAL, WITH M/S ADARSH SHARMA &
     SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE




                                                                       .
     GENERALS, AND MR. KAMAL KANT





     CHANDEL,       DEPUTY     ADVOCATE
     GENERALS, FOR R-1 AND R-2
     MS. ARCHANA DUTT, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3
     SHRI PRAVEEN CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE,





     VICE SH. L.N. SHARMA, ADVOCATE, FOR
     R-4)
     Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
__________________________________________________________
         These petitions coming on for hearing this day, the Court
passed the following:
                         r              to
                                   JUDGMENT

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are

as under:-

Respondent No. 3 issued an Advertisement dated

16.10.2000, vide which, it advertised, inter alia, the posts of Junior

Engineer (Electrical), which were to be filled from amongst General

category candidates. A copy of the Advertisement is appended with the

petition as Annexure -A/7. In terms thereof, a person possessing the

qualification of Diploma/Degree in Electrical Engineering/AMIE or above

from an Institute recognized by the Government, was eligible to participate

in the selection process. According to the petitioner, he applied for the

post by submitting his requisite documents. He appeared in the screening

test and was declared qualified in the same. Besides the petitioner,

candidates with Roll Nos. 128, 263, 272, 354 and 433 were also declared

to have had passed the test. Roll Number of the petitioner was 182.

Thereafter, the petitioner was invited for personal interview, which was

.

scheduled for 18.07.2001. He appeared in the same. Respondent No. 3

declared the final result on 26.07.2001. Though the petitioner was not

selected, the candidates with Roll Nos. 283 and 433 were declared to be

selected.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition, inter alia,

on the ground that non-selection of the petitioner, who was more qualified

than the selected candidates, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as

higher qualification and work experience of the petitioner were ignored by

the Board while recommending the names of other candidates. Further, as

per the petitioner, the marks obtained by the candidates in the screening

test were also taken into consideration while assessing the merit, which

was totally illegal and bad in law, as the recommendations ought to have

been made by the respondent-Board without taking into consideration the

marks obtained by a candidate in the screening test.

3. In this background, when the case was listed before the Court

on 06.09.2021, the following order was passed:-

"It is really unfortunate that this petition initially filed in the year 2001, till date has not been decided by the Court.

Heard for some time. For continuation, list on 15th September, 2021, on

which date, respondent No. 3 shall produce the record pertaining to the selection of petitioner and respondent No. 4. It is clarified that no further

.

adjournment on any count shall be given by the

Court in this regard."

4. Thereafter, on 15.09.2021, the following order was passed:

"Record of the interviews has been produced by Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-Commission. The record after perusal stands returned to Ms. Dutt, with the direction that the same be produced on

the next date of hearing also. On the said date,

respondent-Commission shall also apprise the Court as to what was the mode of selection contemplated in the process of recruitments of

Junior Engineer, which post is subject matter of this writ petition, because the contention of

learned counsel for the petitioner is that the selection has been made on the basis of the

marks obtained by the candidates in the Screening Test and the consideration of said

marks for the purpose of appointment is in violation of the settled law of the land.

List for further consideration on 25th

October, 2021."

5. Today, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has

produced the original record of the interview as well as instructions so

imparted to her by respondent No. 3, alongwith which, relevant extract of

the Rules of Procedure/Business adopted by respondent No. 3 has also

.

been appended.

6. A perusal of the instructions so imparted to learned counsel

for respondent No. 3 demonstrates that in terms of the Rules of

Procedure/Business adopted by respondent No. 3, when a written test is

held by the respondent-Board for assessing the suitability of candidates

for a particular post, then the marks obtained in the same and the

interview are entered in a sheet and total struck and category wise result

declared for onward transmission. A perusal of the record of the written

examination and interview further demonstrates that in the written test, the

petitioner had scored 142 marks out of 200 marks, whereas the selected

candidate, who later on was impleaded as respondent No. 4, scored 154

marks out of 200 marks and the other selected candidate, who incidentally

has not been impleaded as party respondent, scored 142 marks out of

200 marks.

7. In the interview, the petitioner was given 8 marks out of 30

marks, whereas other selected candidate, who is not before the Court,

was given 10 marks out of 30 marks. The Rules of Procedure/Business

adopted by the respondent-Board are not under challenge in this petition.

Further, there is no per se allegation of malafide contained in the petition,

from which, it can be inferred that the selection of the selected candidates

was for reasons other than merit. The allegation of the petitioner that his

experience etc. has not been taken into consideration is not being gone

.

into by the Court for the reason that a perusal of the record demonstrates

that under this Head, marks were not granted to any of the candidates.

This means that suitability of the candidates was assessed by the Board

only on the basis of the marks obtained in the written test and the marks

alloted to them in the interview.

8. It is not the case of the petitioner that the selected candidates

were not eligible for appointment to the post in issue. Therefore, the

factum of the petitioner possessing higher qualification loses its

significance, as it was nowhere mentioned in the Advertisement that a

candidate possessing higher qualification would be given some added

advantage. Besides this, another thing which is weighing with the Court

very heavily, is the fact that the selection process which has been assailed

by way of this petition, took place in the year, 2001 and today we are in

the year 2021. The Court has also been informed that now the petitioner is

also in job, though on contract basis. In this backdrop, the Court is of the

considered view that in case any interference is made by this Court on

merit with the selection under challenge, then it will unnecessarily disturb

the selected candidates, who have been appointed to the post in question

at least two decades back and one of whom is not even before the Court.

9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the

considered view that there is no need for the Court to interfere in the

.

process of recommendations made by the respondent-Board, which

stands assailed by way of this petition and accordingly, the petition is

dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

October 25, 2021 (bhupender)